Pedamalli Venugopal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4120 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                                    ***

W.P.No.18027 of 2021 Between:

1. Pedamalli Venugopal Reddy, S/o.Ventaka Krishna Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Yerram Raghava Reddy, S/o.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 70 years, R/o.H.No.2/33A, 2nd ward, Medaramitla Village, Prakasam District.

3. Suddapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Sambasivaiah, aged about 54 years, R/o.Kondayapalem Gate, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Pedamalli Bharathi, W/o.Venugopal Reddy, aged about 60 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

5. Kattina Polaiah, S/o.Pondaiah, aged about 66 years, R/o.Pandluru Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

6. Adala Masthan Reddy, S/o.Pedda Masthan Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o.JSQ D-1/12, ACE Colony, Guklbarga, Karnataka State.

7. Pedamalli Chandana, W/o.Pavan Kumar Reddy, aged about 35 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

8. Marri Sudhakar, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 36 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

9. Pothuluru Syamala, W/o.P.Uday Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 55 years, R/o.Urja Nagar, Quarter No.C-76, Jeevra Project, Korda District, Chattesgarb.

10. Ponnapu Vinay Kumar, S/o.Masthanaiah, aged about 22 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

11. Lodari Dasaiah, S/o.Ramanaiah, aged about 47 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

12. Marri Guravaiah, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 62 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

13. Peruvayila Gopalaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, aged about 60 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

14. Marri Guruprasad, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

15. Koduru Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Balakrishna Reddy, aged about 75 years, R/o.H.No.24/2/148, Santhi Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

16. Dandigunta Srinivasamurthy, S/o.Venkata Chalapathi Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No.5-3-58, Agraharampeta, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore.

17. Dandigunta Teja, S/o.D.Srinivasamurthy, aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No.5-3-58, Agraharampeta, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore.

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

18. Kalki Pratap Reddy, S/o.Audisesha Reddy, aged about 54 years, R/o.Rajagopalapuram, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

19. Kalki Sujana, W/o.Pratap Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o.Rajagopalapuram, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

20. Parvatha Reddy Suresh Reddy, S/o.Late Venkatasubba Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/o.Flat No.5, Jubilee Heights, Plot No.481/A, Road No.86, Phase-3, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

... Petitioners

And

$ 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2.The Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Sub-Division, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District.

3.The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District.

... Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 21-10-2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment?

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

+ W.P.No.18027 of 2021

% Dated: 21-10-2021

1. Pedamalli Venugopal Reddy, S/o.Ventaka Krishna Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Yerram Raghava Reddy, S/o.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 70 years, R/o.H.No.2/33A, 2nd ward, Medaramitla Village, Prakasam District.

3. Suddapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Sambasivaiah, aged about 54 years, R/o.Kondayapalem Gate, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Pedamalli Bharathi, W/o.Venugopal Reddy, aged about 60 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

5. Kattina Polaiah, S/o.Pondaiah, aged about 66 years, R/o.Pandluru Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

6. Adala Masthan Reddy, S/o.Pedda Masthan Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o.JSQ D-1/12, ACE Colony, Guklbarga, Karnataka State.

7. Pedamalli Chandana, W/o.Pavan Kumar Reddy, aged about 35 years, R/o.Thummuru, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

8. Marri Sudhakar, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 36 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

9. Pothuluru Syamala, W/o.P.Uday Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 55 years, R/o.Urja Nagar, Quarter No.C-76, Jeevra Project, Korda District, Chattesgarb.

10. Ponnapu Vinay Kumar, S/o.Masthanaiah, aged about 22 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

11. Lodari Dasaiah, S/o.Ramanaiah, aged about 47 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

12. Marri Guravaiah, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 62 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

13. Peruvayila Gopalaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, aged about 60 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

14. Marri Guruprasad, S/o.Guravaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o.Vengamambapuram Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

15. Koduru Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Balakrishna Reddy, aged about 75 years, R/o.H.No.24/2/148, Santhi Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

16. Dandigunta Srinivasamurthy, S/o.Venkata Chalapathi Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No.5-3-58, Agraharampeta, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore.

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

17. Dandigunta Teja, S/o.D.Srinivasamurthy, aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No.5-3-58, Agraharampeta, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore.

18. Kalki Pratap Reddy, S/o.Audisesha Reddy, aged about 54 years, R/o.Rajagopalapuram, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

19. Kalki Sujana, W/o.Pratap Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o.Rajagopalapuram, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

20. Parvatha Reddy Suresh Reddy, S/o.Late Venkatasubba Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/o.Flat No.5, Jubilee Heights, Plot No.481/A, Road No.86, Phase-3, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

... Petitioners

And

$ 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2.The Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Sub-Division, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District.

3.The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District.

... Respondents

! Counsel for petitioners : M/s.P.Ganga Rami Reddy

^Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : G.P. for Roads & Buildings

^Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : G.P for Land Acquistion

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

AIR 1973 SC 2361

AIR 2012 SC 2718

(2011) Vol.10 SCC 714

(2013) 4 SCC 210

5. 2020 SCC online SC 847

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.18027 of 2021

ORDER:-

The petitioners are owners of various extents of land of

Pandluru, Vengamambapuram and Ayyappareddy palem

Villages, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. A connecting

road was initially planned to connect National Highway No.16

with the Industrial Cluster called „Menakur SEZ‟. This

connecting road was to go through lands in L.A Sagaram Village.

It is the case of the petitioners that this proposal was dropped

and an entirely new alignment with Flyover on NH-16 was

planned. This new alignment would take the road through the

land of the above three villages.

2. A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein

after referred as „the Act‟), was published in the daily

newspapers on 25.02.2021 and 10.03.2021. Thereupon, the

petitioners submitted their objection on 12.04.2021 to the 4th

respondent, who submitted a report to the 3rd respondent.

However, it is the case of the petitioners that this report was

given without conducting any enquiry and without giving any

opportunity to the petitioners. Thereafter, the 4th respondent

had issued a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, which

was published in the daily newspapers on 26.06.2021 and

30.06.2021.

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by these

notifications, have approached this Court, seeking a writ

declaring the notification issued by the 3rd respondent under

Section 11(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 19(1)

of the Act proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners

situated in the above three villages o be illegal and violative of

the provisions of the Act and to set-aside the said notification

and declaration.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioners in this

regard are;

1) Chapter-II consisting of Sections 4 to 9 of the Act requires the preparation of a social impact assessment study before undertaking any acquisition of land under the Act. This requirement can be waived by way of an exemption granted under Section 9 of the Act by the appropriate Government or by the State Government under Section 10A of the Act. In the present case, no social impact assessment study was carried out and an exemption granted by the District Collector is being relied upon by the respondents to claim that exemption from social impact assessment study has been granted under Section 10A of the Act. The said exemption given by the District Collector is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 10A of the Act as the Collector cannot be deemed to be the State Government.

2) Rule 4 (ii) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Development Plan) Rules 2015, (herein after referred as "Rules"), stipulates that the requisitioning body has to deposit the estimated

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

cost of acquisition with the District Collector without which the process under the Act shall not commence. The petitioners contend, in the reply affidavit, that such a deposit has not been made and as such further process could not have been initiated. Section 11 (e) of the Act requires the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act should be done, in the affected area, in such a manner as may be prescribed. Rule 19(e) of the Rules prescribes that the notification has to be published by way of affixture in the lands, which are being acquired and no such affixtures had been carried out. The petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore vs. Abdul Razak Sahib1, R.Prakash Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2 and J&K Housing Board Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul.,3 to contend that violation of this requirement would result in the entire process being set aside.

3) Section 15 of the Act states that every objection filed in relation to the notification issued under Section 11(1) should be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person. The petitioners contend that personal hearing has not been given to the petitioners and as such, there could not have been a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act.

4) Section 10 of the Act states that no irrigated multiple crop land should be acquired under this Act unless exceptional circumstances, as set out under Sub Section 2 are made out. The petitioners

AIR 1973 SC 2361

AIR 2012 SC 2718

(2011) Vol.10 SCC 714

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

contend that in this case, the land of the petitioners is double wet crop land and no case, as required under Section 10(2), has been made out by the respondents.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter

affidavit and respondents 3 and 4 have filed a separate counter

affidavit. The respondents have disputed and denied all the

aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioners. The salient

contentions of the respondents are that the alignment of the

road had been done after considering all the possible

alternatives. It is further stated the petitioners had raised an

objection for changing the proposed alignment and this

objection was considered by the Collector, who addressed a

letter to the Executive Engineer R & B Division, Gudur. The

said Executive Engineer, after going through the objections

relating to change of arrangement, had set out the reasons as

to why the proposed alignment cannot be changed and

thereafter, the declaration was issued as nothing further

survives in the objection of the petitioners.

6. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, the learned Counsel

for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Roads

and Buildings and the Learned government Pleader for Land

Acquisition.

7. The first objection raised by the petitioners was that

the exemption granted under Section 10A of the Act for

conducting the social impact assessment study is an invalid

exemption as it was given by the District Collector while the Act

requires the said exemption to be granted by the State

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

Government. The respondents contend that Rule 2(b) of the

Rules defines appropriate Government to include the Collector

and Rule 2(d) defines the Collector to include the R.D.O and

other Officials. The respondents have filed proceedings of the

Collector in Rc.No.G5.1539/2020 dated 21.09.2020 exempting

the acquisition in the present case, from the provisions of

Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act as well as Rule 4 of the

Rules. In view of the said proceedings, dated 21.09.2020 and

the notification for exemption prepared on the basis of the said

proceeding the requirement of a social impact assessment

study stands waived. Further, as pointed out by the learned

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the said exemption

has not been challenged. As such, the contention of the

petitioners on this ground would have to fail.

8. The second contention raised by the petitioners was

that the acquisition process could not have gone forward

without deposit of the estimated compensation with the District

Collector and the same was not done. In reply, the respondents

relied upon the above proceedings of the District Collector

which had exempted the present acquisition process not only

from the provisions of Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act but

also from the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules. In the

circumstances, this objection of the petitioners would also have

to fail.

9. The next contention raised by the petitioners is that

the notice of the acquisition has not been affixed in a

prominent place in the lands which are sought to be acquired.

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

It is the contention of the respondents that the said affixture

has been done and the notice of the acquisition was done by

tom tom also. The objections of the petitioners in this regard

would also have to fail. The judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court relied upon by the petitioners are to the effect that any

violation of the requirements of notification would result in

cancellation of the acquisition process itself. In the present

case, no such violation of the procedure has been demonstrated

by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the Judgments of

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court would not be of any avail to the

petitioners and this objection also would have to be rejected.

10. Another objection raised by the petitioners was that

the double wet crop land of the petitioners, in view of the

prohibition under Section 10 of the Act, could not have been

acquired. However, an exemption has already been granted,

from this provision, under the proceedings of the Collector

Rc.No.G5.1539/2020 dated 21.09.2020. Apart from this, the

proviso to section 10 itself states that the said provision would

not apply to linear projects such as highway and roads.

Therefore, this objection would also have to give way.

11. The last objection raised by the petitioners is that

the petitioners were not given a personal hearing before the

declaration was issued under Section 19 of the Act. This fact

has not been disputed by the respondents. The petitioners rely

upon the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in USHA

STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS4, to contend

that lack of personal hearing is fatal to the entire process. The

stand of the respondents is that such a personal hearing would

not have made any difference as the issue relates to alignment

of the road and the said issue, which is technical in nature,

cannot be resolved by way of a personal hearing and in any

event, the report of the Executive Engineer, R & B is sufficient

to demonstrate that the acquisition authorities could not have

made any change in the alignment of the road.

12. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering the

provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

which is pari materia similar to section 15 of the Act and reads

as follows:

5-A.Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.

(2013) 4 SCC 210

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after referring to various

judgements cited before it, had reiterated that, the decision of

the Government to go ahead with the acquisition process would

be dependent on the report of the collector, which in turn

would be based upon his consideration of the objections of the

affected parties and as such the right of a personal hearing

given to the affected parties is a mandatory requirement.

13. However, there has been an alternative view on the

question of whether the absence of such a hearing is fatal to

the concerned administrative process. The Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in STATE OF U.P. Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH5, after an

extensive review of the judgments following that line of thought,

had summarized the principles in this regard as follows:

An analysis of the aforesaid judgements thus reveals:

(1) Natural Justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the

judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The

breach of the Audi Alteram partem rule, cannot by itself,

without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby

caused.

(2) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of

law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction

per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here

again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the

case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not

only in Individual interest, but also in public interest.

2020 SCC online SC 847

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

(3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining

of breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute

the case against him or it. This can happen by way of estoppel,

acquiescence, waiver and by way of non challenge or non denial

or admission of facts, in cases in which the court finds on facts

that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been

caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural

justice.

(4) In cases where facts can be said to be admitted or

undisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the court

does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when

there is, in fact , no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be

drawn by the court on an appraisal of the facts of the case, and

not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.

(5) The "prejudice" exception must be more than an

apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It

should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite

inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from non observance

of natural justice.

14. In the present case, it could be argued that a

personal hearing would have made no difference to the case of

the petitioners and may not cause prejudice to their interest as

a personal hearing would not make out any case which would

run counter to the reasons given by the Executive Engineer,

R & B, Gudur Division. However, the guideline No. 2, set out

above also stipulates that where there is a mandatory provision

of law which is conceived not only in Individual interest, but

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

also in public interest, requiring a personal hearing, any

violation of such a requirement would have to be treated as a

violation of principles of natural justice requiring the said

process to be set-aside, irrespective of whether a prejudice can

be demonstrated or not. Section 15 of the Act has been

incorporated to ensure that the public authorities exercising

the right of Eminent Domain of the State shall take care to see

that the property of a person shall not be taken away without

hearing the objections of such a person. The requirement of a

personal hearing ensures that the affected persons are heard

and their distress and difficulties can be brought home better

to the authority hearing their objections. As such, this

requirement under section 15 would have to be treated as a

mandatory requirement conceived in public interest. [[[

15. In these circumstances, this writ petition is partly

allowed rejecting the challenge to the notification issued under

Section 11(e) of the Act while setting aside the declaration

issued under Section 19 of the Act, leaving it open to the 3 rd

respondent to give a personal hearing to the petitioners and

thereafter, determine whether a declaration under Section 19 of

the Act can be issued or not. It would be open to the

respondents to take further action depending upon such a

determination by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 21-10-2021 RJS

RRR,J W.P.No.18027 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.18027 of 2021

Date : 21-10-2021

RJS